Goodman v. New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the plaintiffs’ probation was not a pending criminal action for Younger purposes because the plaintiffs could not raise their constitutional challenges to the relevant state criminal statute in the probation proceeding
• noting that the subject statute was before the California Supreme Court and had yet to be “construed authoritatively”
• “[T]he litigants need not undergo the expense or delay of a full state court litigation because other parties are already presenting the issue to the California Supreme Court.”
• \[T]he litigants need not undergo the expense or delay of a full state court litigation because other parties are already presenting the issue to the California Supreme Court.\
• “That a pending state court litigation between other parties might resolve the issues presented weighs in favor of abstention.” (citations omitted)
• “[F]or Pullman abstention purposes, a challenge to an anti-obscenity statute concerned ‘arguably more sensitive social issues’ than land use planning, which is regularly recognized as a sensitive issue of social policy.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).